Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

Yee: This is just male chauvinist nonsense. Either rule will work when you enforce it, people learn to adapt. Taliban and Saudi societies are so difference from the Philippines, still people in these places live a normal life.

As for the rulers themselves, as long as they’re good at organizing things, it’s will work. This is the main quality that required to run a society. Females actually are better.

Depends. Are the women ruling according to the rules and mores of women or according to the rules and mores of men. Look what happens when you let women make the law. Prohibition was put in by women. Women’s long-term activism was the only reason that Prohibition was passed at all. Although it came one year after women were given the right to vote, Prohibition was a societal change that was made by the rules and mores of women. All over the world, whenever alcohol is made illegal or restricted, it done most of the time by women.  The result of Prohibition? Total chaos.

That’s what happens when you let women make the rules. And in Communist insurgencies, typically Maoist ones, they often put women in charge of the local village and town governments. What’s the first thing they do? Over and over I have read that the first thing they do is make alcohol illegal. Result of making alcohol illegal?

Chaos.

Sweden is governed according to the rules and mores of women. That’s why it is a nightmare state for men.

Female rulers are fine. You can have an all-female government for all I care. But they must govern according to the rules and mores of men, not women.

Look what happened in California when we let women make the rules. The state of California just voted that on all university campuses, you must have affirmative consent for every sex act. Like you want to kiss her, you have to ask, “Can I kiss you?” You want to touch her tits? You have to ask her, “Can I feel your tits?”

Guess who put those rules in?

Women.

What is the result of this stupid-ass “affirmative consent” nonsense?

Chaos.

Those are the sort of lunatic rules and laws that you get when you let women run the show and govern according to the rules and mores of women. According to the rules and mores of women, that idiot affirmative consent rule is 100% rational. That’s how women actually think. They think a rule like that is completely reasonable and sensible.

19 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Local, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West, Women

19 responses to “Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

  1. Juan

    OKAY, on the affirmative consent stuff/Radical feminist stuff there does seem to be a bit of a problem (not I am not an MRA and based on what I know about them they seem to be a bunch of Alt Right incels)…

    in that “equality” is not enforced or the goal. It is difference towards females which implies inherent inequality.
    This is the problem.

  2. Yee

    There’s actually still one matriarchal society in Yunnan province of China, one minority ethnic group named “Mosuo”.

    I never heard they have troubles. A famous tourist attraction Lake Lugu in their territory, they’re making good money.

    This example makes more sense than some ridiculous changes by women in a patriarchal society.

    • Well here in the West, every time we give women power, they ruin everything by making a bunch of insane and unenforceable rules. Look what they are doing to Sweden. Look what they are doing to the UK. Look what has happened and is happening here in the US. They are free to be in power, no problem with that, but the rules must be made by men, good men.

      • Yee

        Medieval Europeans lived their life. Was that different enough from today?

        It’s just that adaption is a long process.

        • But at the same time not all pressure are the same in terms of adaptability, laws aren’t any different.

          Sometimes things are just prone to some sort of disaster and laws are not different, hence why protests and revolutions by the people exist. Technically that response itself can be “adaptation” in the sense of how human change the environment to suit their needs.

        • Yee

          Isn’t this proof that rules made by males aren’t perfect?

          My point is that female made rules don’t necessarily worse than male made ones, because people can adapt. I don’t mean it would be perfect, neither one would be.

        • “Isn’t this proof that rules made by males aren’t perfect?

          My point is that female made rules don’t necessarily worse than male made ones, because people can adapt. I don’t mean it would be perfect, neither one would be.”

          The fact that people can “adapt” to rules doesn’t change the point on how severe lengths of adaptation, such as protests, occur per capita under female rule versus male rule, by the definitions of Robert.

          It’s not perfection as much as relative efficiency between the two.

        • Yee

          Since there aren’t enough matriarchal societies in the world to make comparison with patriarchal ones.

          The only remain of some sort of matriarchal ruled are families. Are you sure people have more “severe lengths of adaptation” in family than the patriarchal outside?

        • “Since there aren’t enough matriarchal societies in the world to make comparison with patriarchal ones.”

          Fair enough, but I have provided resources on examples of female leadership not being best for at least certain role (Minister of Defense for example) supported by psychological data.

          “The only remain of some sort of matriarchal ruled are families. Are you sure people have more “severe lengths of adaptation” in family than the patriarchal outside?”

          Well no, we should expect that as that fits a traditional mold of female authority would be somewhere in the responsibilities of the family hence women leaders being more keen on communication and emotion.

          Men in a basal sense were made for productivity and organization of groups for events like hunting, which also involved planning as well.

        • To Yee,

          So basically, seeing how females typically were geared toward family duties in early human history, a matriarchal family wouldn’t be that huge of a leap.

          Furthermore in case where that occurs, like in West Africa, they are usually helped by extended family which goes to another statistical difference, women more often working in groups and men more often working alone.

        • Yee

          I can understand Robert’s reluctance to let women make rules. I just don’t agree to his reason for it.

          It’s not because women are irrational or stupid or some other characteristic flaws, it’s because male productivity makes a male dominant society, so men don’t like rules not beneficial to them.

          If the society is dominated by women productivity, all the ridiculous rules would be perfectly rational and acceptable.

        • I” can understand Robert’s reluctance to let women make rules. I just don’t agree to his reason for it.

          It’s not because women are irrational or stupid or some other characteristic flaws, it’s because male productivity makes a male dominant society, so men don’t like rules not beneficial to them.”

          I can agree slimly with this, but of note that technically while men may not be logic itself, being the major providers and group organizers they would have adaptation more so fit for that type of executive leadership position on average compared to women.

          The difference here is that I don;t think it’s simply a male female subjectivity, but the actually thinking process involved in decision making

          “If the society is dominated by women productivity, all the ridiculous rules would be perfectly rational and acceptable.”

          Well if women were adapted to be the more productive type they thus may’ve adapted to similar abilities of men in general leadership.

          Again see here on their different approaches.

          http://www.genderintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/How-Men-and-Women-Lead-Differently.pdf

          The differences manly come from different roles.

          Iguess you could be right though depending how human society is structured to the point where it’s foundation in very different.

        • Yee

          If Robert just says, “Hey, it’s a men’s world, only we get to make the rules.” Then it would be closer to the truth. I’d be resentful, but couldn’t argue with it.

        • To Yee,

          In that case I agree.

  3. TJF

    To Rob:
    We gave them the vote and the first thing they did was make booze illegal.

    Prohibition was enacted by the 18th amendment before most women in the US could vote:
    Its ratification was certified on January 16, 1919, with the amendment taking effect on January 16, 1920.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    The US granted women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment – 8 months after prohibition went into effect:

    “The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Also evangelical Christianity, which was generally anti-alcohol, was on the rise in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led by mostly male ministers.

    That said, yes many women involved in temperance movement (abolishing or restricting alcohol) were also part of the suffrage movement – but they also campaigned for 8 hour work days, prison reform, and world peace.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Willard_(suffragist)

    And some were a bit nuts:
    https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/carry-nation-biography-carrie-nation/

    But there were quite a few women who realized that prohibition was a bad idea – an organization formed by for the repeal of prohibition eventually outgrew the original women’s temperance movement several times over :

    https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/Controversies/Womens-Organization-for-National-Prohibition-Reform.html

    “In less than one year the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform had a membership of 100,000. In April of 1931 it had 300,000 and in April of 1932 the number grew to 600,000. By November of that year there were over 1,100,000 and by the time of Repeal in December of that year, 1.5 million members were claimed. Even if the numbers were exaggerated, WONPR was clearly the largest anti-Prohibition organization in the country and several times larger than the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).

    The success of the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform soon distressed many Prohibition supporters who could no longer dismiss it. It was large, growing, powerful and visible. Pauline Sabin was featured on the cover of Time magazine on July 18, 1932. The power and influence of the WONPR was especially irritating to drys because women, who were traditionally thought to advocate Prohibition, had become organized and powerful opponents.”

    • One of the three reasons I’ve stayed overseas is prostitutes and women are not really that inflamed by prostitution.

      Some are angry at males but most do not get that worked up over it in a developing country where jobs for women are scarce.

      After all, most women use sex TO GET SOMETHING.

      Many women love to drink. At least as many as males.

  4. Jason Y

    Are you sure women made booze illegal? Do you really think men, especially in that day in age, were that much push-overs? Also, the KKK and of course, evangelicals like Mike Pence types, were badly wanting prohibition. See all this stuff was a reaction AGAINST feminism etc.. The Jazz age to people in those days seemed like the hip-hop age is now.

  5. reid

    women got the vote a year after prohibition was initiated, my dude

  6. John Muhleisen

    Matriarchal societies are always weak and they always fail and they always collapse. No society can ever survive under a matriarchy and no society can ever flourish under a matriarchy. A society can only ever be strong and can only ever be successful and can only ever survive if it’s a patriarchy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s